Aiding And Abetting Liability

111 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Rolf v. Blyth
  570 F.2d 38· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-03 ·cited 140×
  The court held that a registered representative and his employer are not liable under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for losses suffered by a customer due to an independent investment advisor's fraud, as the representative lacked the requisite scienter.
• Sundstrand Corp. v. SUN Chem. Corp.
  553 F.2d 1033· 7th Cir.· 1977-02-23 ·cited 134×
  The court held that defendants Huarisa and Sun Chemical are liable for securities fraud under Rule 10b-5 due to material misrepresentations and omissions, and that Meers is liable for reckless omission of material facts. Damages were modified.
• United States v. Hernandez
  290 F.2d 86· 2d Cir.· 1961-02-14 ·cited 102×
  The court held that a trial court must inspect grand jury minutes upon request when the witness's testimony is crucial, and that possession under 21 U.S.C. § 174 requires dominion and control, not merely association with a possessor.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. The Seaboard Corp.
  677 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 79×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted on the § 10(b) claim due to a disputed issue of fact regarding the statute of limitations, but affirmed summary judgment on other claims based on the statute of limitations and the court's finding that the prospectus was
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Coffey
  493 F.2d 1304· 6th Cir.· 1974-03-28 ·cited 75×
  The court held that corporate officials cannot be personally enjoined for corporate securities law violations unless they personally committed or knowingly participated in the violation. The court reversed the injunction against the appellants, finding no evidence of a fraudulent
• Schlifke v. Seafirst Corp. & Seattle-First Nat'l Bank
  866 F.2d 935· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-19 ·cited 69×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the Bank's actions constituted a customary financing transaction, not a securities sale, and thus did not give rise to liability under the federal securities laws.
• Woods v. Barnett Bank OF Fort Lauder-Dale
  765 F.2d 1004· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 67×
  Barnett Bank is liable as an aider and abettor for securities fraud because its employee's "disastrously reckless" letter to the trustee bank constituted knowing and substantial assistance to the fraud, and the award of compensatory damages was affirmed.
• Iroquois Indus., Inc. v. Syracuse China Corp.
  417 F.2d 963· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-03 ·cited 63×
  A civil action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires the plaintiff to be a purchaser or seller of securities, adhering to the Birnbaum rule.
• United States v. Giovannetti
  919 F.2d 1223· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-05 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the 'ostrich' instruction was improperly given because there was no evidence that the defendant deliberately avoided acquiring knowledge of the illegal activity. The court also held that the government waived its statute of limitations argument by failing to c
• LHLC Corp. v. Cluett
  842 F.2d 928· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-03 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the securities fraud claim against the accountant was properly dismissed as the accountant's communication was not material to the investment decision and the accountant had no duty to disclose. The court also held that summary judgment for the seller on estop
• United States v. Normandeau
  800 F.2d 953· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 49×
  The court held that knowledge of the quantity of marijuana is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and that a warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible if supported by probable cause.
• Harmsen v. Smith
  693 F.2d 932· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-01 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the National Bank Act's Section 93 is not an exclusive remedy, allowing for concurrent claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and pendent state law claims. It also affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting liability under
• Metge v. Baehler
  762 F.2d 621· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-15 ·cited 42×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate on the aiding and abetting claim, but affirmed summary judgment on the controlling person claim.
• United States v. Perez
  956 F.2d 1098· 11th Cir.· 1992-03-31 ·cited 38×
  Four defendants were convicted of burglary and theft from a tribal cultural center on a reservation, with two also convicted of assault on a federal officer. The court affirmed all convictions and sentences, holding that the Assimilative Crimes Act properly applied Florida theft
• United States v. Tito Juan Pino-Perez
  870 F.2d 1230· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the defendant's variance argument was not frivolous, the lack of a bill of particulars prevented certainty, and the proof at trial appeared adequate under the indictment's language.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Coven
  581 F.2d 1020· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-02 ·cited 37×
  The court held that liability for aiding and abetting violations of Section 17(a) of the 1933 Act in an SEC enforcement action can be based on negligent conduct, not requiring scienter. However, the court reversed findings of aiding and abetting for improper trading and failure t
• McCOWN v. Heidler
  527 F.2d 204· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-22 ·cited 37×
  Individual officers and directors of a developer can be held liable under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, and the sale of real estate lots may constitute the sale of securities if structured as an investment contract.
• United States v. Johnson & Towers, Inc.
  741 F.2d 662· 3d Cir.· 1984-08-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's criminal penalty provision applies to employees, not just owners and operators, provided they knowingly treated, stored, or disposed of hazardous waste without a permit.
• Windon Third OIL & GAS Drilling P'ship v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  805 F.2d 342· 10th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts demonstrating a relationship of trust and confidence, which is necessary to establish a duty to disclose under federal securities law, thus affirming summary judgment.
• Collins v. Signetics Corp. & Corning Glass Works. Appeal of John R. Cillag in No. 78-2500
  605 F.2d 110· 3d Cir.· 1979-08-31 ·cited 32×
  Absence of privity between the purchaser and the seller is fatal to a claim under § 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and defendants met their burden of proving that stock price decline was due to factors other than material omissions under § 11.
• United States v. Estrada
  751 F.2d 128· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 30×
  The court's opinion is concurred with, but the precise effect of joining lesser convictions with a greater conviction is unclear.
• United States v. DeLaMOTTE
  434 F.2d 289· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial judge's summary of evidence was not erroneous and that the kidnapping statute was properly applied. Admission of prior consistent statements and the omission of a cautionary instruction were also not grounds for reversal.
• Rosenthal & Co. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n
  802 F.2d 963· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-03 ·cited 29×
  A commodities broker can be held strictly liable under the Commodity Exchange Act for the fraudulent acts of its registered representative, even if the broker lacked knowledge of the fraud, provided the acts were within the scope of the agency.
• Alvarado-Linares v. United States
  44 F.4th 1334· 11th Cir.· 2022-08-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that murder and attempted murder under the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act (VICAR), when predicated on Georgia malice murder and attempted murder statutes, qualify as 'crimes of violence' under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).
• Evans v. State
  643 So. 2d 1204· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-10-24 ·cited 26×
  Evidence is legally insufficient to support conviction for aiding and abetting when the defendant's uncontradicted statement establishes he was present at the scene but did not provide aid, encouragement, or incitement to the principal offenders, and the state fails to present ev
• Bosco v. Serhant
  836 F.2d 271· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Chicago Mercantile Exchange was not liable for failing to enforce its rules because its interpretation was not in bad faith, and that the plaintiffs' aiding and abetting claim failed due to lack of evidence. The court also found the jury's damage award, th
• United States v. Griffin
  705 F.2d 434· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court's jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Dolasco
  184 F.2d 746· 3d Cir.· 1950-10-19 ·cited 24×
  A conviction for stealing goods in interstate commerce can stand even if the defendant is acquitted of receiving the goods, and jury verdicts need not be consistent.
• Jacquelyn Davis v. State
  922 So. 2d 279· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-02-09 ·cited 22×
• Renovitch v. Kaufman
  905 F.2d 1040· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant attorneys acted with scienter or committed a deceptive act, thus affirming summary judgment for the attorneys on claims of aiding and abetting securities fraud and common law fraud.
• Schatz v. Rosenberg
  943 F.2d 485· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 19×
  A law firm cannot be held liable under federal securities laws for failing to disclose a client's financial misrepresentations to third parties absent a fiduciary or other confidential relationship. Lawyers are not liable for incorporating client misrepresentations into closing d
• United States v. Williams
  334 F.3d 1228· 11th Cir.· 2003-06-24 ·cited 18×
  Williams was convicted of armed credit union robbery and using a handgun during the crime. He challenged his ten-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), arguing he should not be held accountable for his codefendant's use of a semiautomatic assault weapon. The
• Johnson v. State
  583 So. 2d 386· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-07-23 ·cited 18×
  William Johnson appealed his five-and-one-half-year sentence for armed robbery, challenging the trial court's failure to require corroborating evidence when he disputed a prior grand larceny conviction used in calculating his sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The First District C
• Marcum v. State
  379 So. 2d 974· Fla. 5th DCA· 1979-12-27 ·cited 18×
  Under Florida Statute § 782.04(3), when a person is killed during the perpetration of a felony by someone other than the felon (including a victim), the surviving felons are guilty of second-degree murder only, not first-degree murder. A defendant charged with felony murder must
• Shaheed Madyun v. Young
  852 F.2d 1029· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 16×
• Instituto de Prevision Militar v. Merrill Lynch
  546 F.3d 1340· 11th Cir.· 2008-10-29 ·cited 14×
  Instituto de Prevision Militar (IPM), a Guatemalan pension fund, sued Merrill Lynch for fraud and related state law claims arising from Merrill Lynch's alleged role in facilitating Pension Fund of America's theft of IPM's invested funds. The Eleventh Circuit held that SLUSA barre
• Bartholomew v. Northampton Nat'l Bank OF Easton
  584 F.2d 1288· 3d Cir.· 1978-08-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the banks and Brock were not liable under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act because they were neither developers nor agents. The court also affirmed the dismissal of usury and Truth-In-Lending Act claims.
• W.O. Akin v. Q-L Invs., Inc.
  959 F.2d 521· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on all claims and striking all affidavits, as genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the accountants' knowledge, reliance, and potential aiding and abetting liability.
• Ross v. Bolton
  904 F.2d 819· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-30 ·cited 12×
  A clearing firm can use the in pari delicto defense to bar an investor's suit if the investor bears substantially equal responsibility for the transactions and barring the suit does not significantly interfere with the enforcement of securities laws.
• Orloff v. Allman
  819 F.2d 904· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-12 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the defendant's liability as a controlling person, aider and abettor, or alter ego.
• Decker v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  631 F.2d 1380· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the SEC erred in disregarding expert testimony on service valuation and in failing to require proof of awareness of wrongdoing for aiding and abetting liability. The case is remanded for reconsideration.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. & Paul Kalmanovitz
  629 F.2d 62· D.C. Cir.· 1980-05-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Kalmanovitz could be held liable under Section 14(a) for permitting his name to be used in a misleading proxy solicitation, and that both Falstaff and Kalmanovitz violated Section 13(a) reporting requirements and Section 10(b) by engaging in deceptive practice
• United States v. Burkhalter
  583 F.2d 389· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 12×
  A defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting the transfer of a firearm without payment of the required tax, even if they did not have specific intent to violate the law, as long as they knew they were dealing with a dangerous device likely subject to regulation. Pre-indict
• United States v. Baker
  611 F.2d 961· 4th Cir.· 1979-12-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the district court did not commit reversible error in its jury charges or evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Harbolt
  491 F.2d 78· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's prior meeting with a co-defendant in prison, while potentially prejudicial, was not reversible error due to overwhelming evidence of guilt and the evidence's relevance to the defense's strategy.
• Colon v. Twitter, Inc.
  14 F.4th 1213· 11th Cir.· 2021-09-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Pulse nightclub shooting did not qualify as an 'act of international terrorism' under the Anti-Terrorism Act because it did not transcend national boundaries, and thus the social media companies could not be liable for aiding and abetting. The court also f
• Beck Auto Sales, Inc. v. Asbury Jax Ford, LLC
  249 So. 3d 765· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-06-20 ·cited 9×
  A non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may invoke equitable estoppel to compel arbitration only if the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause. Although the arbitration agreement here was broad and covered disputes involving persons whose liability "derives
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. K.W. Brown & Co.
  555 F. Supp. 2d 1275· S.D. Fla.· 2008-01-04 ·cited 8×
  The court found the defendants liable for violations of federal securities laws, including anti-fraud and books and records provisions, due to a cherry-picking scheme and misleading disclosures.
• United States v. Edwards
  166 F.3d 1362· 11th Cir.· 1999-02-11 ·cited 8×
  Jonathan Edwards was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine after briefly inspecting a bag of cocaine in an undercover officer's car trunk during a reverse sting operation. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the conviction, holding that Edwards never possessed
• Elec. Lab. Supply Co., Inc. v. Cullen
  977 F.2d 798· 3d Cir.· 1992-10-15 ·cited 7×
  Attorneys are not 'applicants' under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(ll) and cannot be sued for wrongful seizure under that provision, nor is there aiding and abetting liability under the statute.